No defense is needed for anti-racism for it is the status quo today and for the forseeable future i.e. my lifetime and I'm pretty young.

Then you likely can't see very far. Most anti-racists can't. All of the predictions made by anti-racists in the 1960s turned out to be wrong. They said that crime wouldn't go up, but it did. They said that America's racial and cultural demographics wouldn't change, but it did.

It seems that anti-racists do have an awful lot to answer for and defend, starting with public policies from the FDR Administration on.

Quote:

It would seem that the defense is needed for White Nationalism which doesn't exactly appear to be taking off. Perhaps you should hire an advertising agency.

Those who commit harm against others (as anti-racists have done) are the ones who need to mount a defense. We don't need to defend anything because we've done nothing wrong. We don't have the power to do anything. Anti-racists do, and it's up to them to explain their actions over the past 60+ years.

You're the ones who have been doing wrong in this world, not us. We're completely innocent, so we do not need to offer any defense for our actions, but you do.

The man currently sitting in the White House is an anti-racist. You can start by explaining and justifying his actions first, since he is acting according to your ideology and belief system. Then, you can explain and justify every president's actions since FDR, since they were ALL fervent and devoted anti-racists. As you say, it's the status quo today, and those were the men primarily responsible for it.

So, defend them, if you can.

If you can't, then there is no defense for anti-racism, which proves the OP's point quite well.

I didn't read this whole lengthy thread. Remember the Southpark episode where God was asked what religion was most correct? His answer was 'Mormon, yes, I believe it is Mormon'. Or something like that.

I think you’re just trying to intellectually justify why you want to race mix and live in a multiracial area. I would prefer it if you just wrote that instead of coming up with idiocy, the two points above, that just lower the level of debate on this thread.

Yep.

Quote:

Originally Posted by æþeling

If you want to have mixed race kids and live in a mixed race area then that is, of course, your choice to make, but your preferences should not be forced upon those who do not, which if the levels of segregation and the fact that endogamy is the norm are anything to go by is the majority of any race.

Before you go using terms like "racism," it would serve you well to know their origins. The fact that you people use these terms blindly only goes to show that anti-racists are intellectually challenged.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uhh.. Ariel.

There is absolutely no reason to hate someone based on their skin color. That's about as smart as hating someone because they're short, or because they're tall. I know plenty of smart white people, and just as many smart black people.

You're right, but I don't see what this has to do with white nationalism unless you're disingenuously implying that only whites are capable of hating others based on race. If that's what you're implying, you're wrong. If you know better and are willing to admit it, then you'd acknowledge that diversity is the problem, not any one group or groups of people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uhh.. Ariel.

A few too many smart Asians but oh well. sure, whites are the most balanced race of brains and brthe aun, and I mean, studies have shown that. Asians are the smartest, but lack in muscle. Africans are the strongest, but tend not to be as smart. Whites are average in every section, which make them balanced. But so? Those statistics deteriorate over time. People evolve. The IQ among the black population globally has been increasing steadily in the past few years. I've never seen any study done on asian physique though, but still.

Again, I don't see what this has to do with white nationalism. Let me ask you, are you opposed to whites preserving their racial, cultural and national identities, all of which have been undermined and continue to be threatened by diversity? Are you opposed to us advocating what non-whites advocate? If so, why?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uhh.. Ariel.

Who cares if it's morally wrong to hate someone for no reason, how about it's just ignorant, and in doing so, you remove the reasoning that whites are the least ignorant of all.

Hatred, hatred, hatred. It's the official buzzword and rallying cry of anti-racists. That's all you people ever talk about. But, let me ask you, have any you ever asked yourselves what causes all of this hatred you complain about? It couldn't possibly have anything to do forcing people of different races, cultures, and religions with different objectives to live in the same environment, which is exactly what anti-racists advocate, could it? It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that anti-racists have relied strictly on force, coercion and intimidation to sustain their social re-engineering agenda, could it?

The fact that you people never ask yourselves questions or answer questions directly and honestly when confronted, just goes to show how intellectually devoid anti-racism is. Everything about anti-racism is based on gross oversimplifications, emotions, buzzwords, propaganda slogans and platitudes. Nothing is ever based on facts, logic or reason.

Before you go using terms like "racism," it would serve you well to know their origins. The fact that you people use these terms blindly only goes to show that anti-racists are intellectually challenged.
You're right, but I don't see what this has to do with white nationalism unless you're disingenuously implying that only whites are capable of hating others based on race. If that's what you're implying, you're wrong. If you know better and are willing to admit it, then you'd acknowledge that diversity is the problem, not any one group or groups of people.
Again, I don't see what this has to do with white nationalism. Let me ask you, are you opposed to whites preserving their racial, cultural and national identities, all of which have been undermined and continue to be threatened by diversity? Are you opposed to us advocating what non-whites advocate? If so, why?
Hatred, hatred, hatred. It's the official buzzword and rallying cry of anti-racists. That's all you people ever talk about. But, let me ask you, have any you ever asked yourselves what causes all of this hatred you complain about? It couldn't possibly have anything to do forcing people of different races, cultures, and religions with different objectives to live in the same environment, which is exactly what anti-racists advocate, could it? It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that anti-racists have relied strictly on force, coercion and intimidation to sustain their social re-engineering agenda, could it?

The fact that you people never ask yourselves questions or answer questions directly and honestly when confronted, just goes to show how intellectually devoid anti-racism is. Everything about anti-racism is based on gross oversimplifications, emotions, buzzwords, propaganda slogans and platitudes. Nothing is ever based on facts, logic or reason.

Hmmm, I guess that means that all the Stormfronters who proudly proclaim their white racism are really communists or people who blindly adhere to a communist construct. Now THAT's fascinating. Thanks for that information. I was unaware that white racist white nationalists were communists.

No defense is needed for anti-racism for it is the status quo today and for the forseeable future i.e. my lifetime and I'm pretty young. It would seem that the defense is needed for White Nationalism which doesn't exactly appear to be taking off. Perhaps you should hire an advertising agency.

Go into any majority non White neighborhood(assuming you're White) and take a walk around, then come back and tell me that anti "racism" is the status quo. Better yet go to any majority non White country ie: South Africa, Mexico, Thailand, Jamaica, El Salvador, Zimbabwe etc...and then come back from your trip and tell me that anti "racism" is the status quo Yeah right..... it seems to me that anti "racism" is only the status quo among White people. The real status quo these days is anti White not anti "racist". By the way depending upon one's definition of "racist" I may or may not be one, I do not consider myself a "racist" though I think it is a very negative term and try to avoid it.

Hmmm, I guess that means that all the Stormfronters who proudly proclaim their white racism are really communists or people who blindly adhere to a communist construct. Now THAT's fascinating. Thanks for that information. I was unaware that white racist white nationalists were communists.

Hmmm, I guess that means that all the Stormfronters who proudly proclaim their white racism are really communists or people who blindly adhere to a communist construct. Now THAT's fascinating. Thanks for that information. I was unaware that white racist white nationalists were communists.

Hmmm, I guess that means that all the Stormfronters who proudly proclaim their white racism are really communists or people who blindly adhere to a communist construct. Now THAT's fascinating. Thanks for that information. I was unaware that white racist white nationalists were communists.

Do you understand what context means? If not, I suggest you look up the definition, understand it, and refrain from spewing juvenile nonsense, as it only serves to discredit you.

Back to the issue at hand. Do you or do you not have an intellectual argument in defense of anti-racism?

I'll take a stab at this, and I'll try to be as clear as possible. I'll be happy to elaborate on anything you desire that I explain further.

My personal moral axioms (if you disagree with any of these, say so before you argue with any points I derive from them):
1)A person's cultural, class, ethnic or historical background should only factor into their lives as much as they desire it to (in an ideal world). That is, a child of Mormons can become a Muslim. A child working in a family owned flower shop can quit and start up a cheese store. A woman coming from a long line of Swedish folk-dancers need not care for or about Swedish folk-dancing even the tiniest bit.
1X) Similarly, judgment of a person should not be mitigated strongly on any of those things, but rather what they are like and what potential they have.
2)Taking from someone of their life, liberty, or property by force is wrong in any circumstance, unless they have willfully committed a malicious crime or been guilty of extreme negligence resulting in the harm of others.
3)An ideology, belief, or tradition of any sort is only useful insofar as it serves to make lives better (for a definition of "better", see Maslow's Heirarchy).
4)A person has responsibility for both themselves and their community. Without a supporting community, no individual accomplishment is possible. Without individual drive to support it, however, no community can exist with any reasonable success.
5)Of course, if you hate your community and hold totally different values, then you can always leave it, but keep a clear head and recognize that if you want to improve what's around you, you'll need to do more than just work for yourself.
6)Freedom of Speech is inherently good. To have opinions oppressed, even those that are extremely inflammatory, is wrong. Libel, incitement of some actions (especially those that violate #2), and obviously objectionable actions all must be prevented, obviously.

From these I come to several conclusions about race and WN
A)If enough white people want to form their own little enclave without displacing any non-whites, or explicitly barring them, then that's fine. Don't expect me to follow. If a non-white moves into this little neighborhood, then the constant hostility would probably drive them away. If they don't however, then there'd be no justification for trying to force them out by anything beyond acting as lousy neighbors and lousy people towards them (though, obviously, this makes you kind of a jerk). This is mainly from #2, but #1X comes into play if the non-white is a half-decent person. It's not morally right, but it shouldn't be legally wrong (see #6).
B)If a school or a business firm is hiring employees, it's reasonable for them to evaluate their prospects based on their potential, which may not be entirely encapsulated in a resume. Therefore, any affirmative action advantage should be afforded to lower-income people in general, or those from poorly-educated families, rather than minorities in particular (And to an extent it actually balances out this way - remember that Asian Males get shafted by AA). If nothing like this is implemented, then it tends towards widening gaps between the rich and poor, slums that get slummier as the talented few escape, and so on.
C)If a nation wants to impose limits on immigration, go ahead. I support freer immigration, but I recognize it's not an immutable right. If someone is born in a country, or lives there long enough, then at a certain point it becomes cruel and arbitrary to expel them (Say, a person was born somewhere and raised until age 18). Even if they have a different culture, it still can violate #2. After all, the Amish are different, but there's no right for us to proclaim them non-citizens.
D)Attributing inherent value to 'Whiteness' or cultural uniformity is big violation of #4 and #1. You can do it if you want, but you're morally wrong.
E)WN has the right to exist in forms like SF, or skinhead clubs, etc. Stuff like Naziism, violence or support of violence against minorities, paramilitary stuff, race war planning, etc. is pretty screwed up.
F)The 14th amendment attributes equal protection of the law to all citizens, and this ties in perfectly with #1X, 2, 3, 5, and 6. I support it 100%. Any sort of opposition to it is plainly wrong, in my mind.
G)Trying to coerce someone into sticking to traditional cultural norms or values that aren't explicitly in line with #3 is wrong. For instance, if you don't like your kid's taste in music, then only if you have strong reason to believe that it will degrade them conspicuously as a person should you stop them from listening to it (at least starting around age 13, when the average kid is more than mature enough to handle stuff like swearing or sexual descriptions). Similarly, if you don't like your grown up daughter's decision to marry a black man then you shouldn't disown her (#1 and #3), and even if this fiancee really seems like a bad person you should be ready to support said daughter rather than abandon her (see #5, and just being a good person in general).
H)Disliking a piece of entertainment just because it has Jews in it, or was produced by Jews, or features flattering portrayals of Jews is pretty stupid. It's not that bad from a moral standpoint, but sucks as a perspective on which to base art criticism (#1X)
I)Government-sponsored welfare, so long as it's reasonably administrated, is a good thing (#4). Even if a welfare mom is a lazy idiot afraid of work, that's no reason to condemn her kids.
J)If you are made pariah in your community because you have actively voiced opinions that go against the mainstream opinion, then that kind of sucks. You should probably have been smarter and kept your mouth shut, but I still pity you to an extent (#6). Similarly, it would be wrong of a community to judge a person too harshly for this (#1X), even if that minority person is a WN or something of the sort.
K)As far as religious freedom goes, you can do whatever you want, but you should not resort to force or brute exercise of authority to make your kids do whatever you want (especially if it involves anything like withholding medical treatment) (#1, # 3, #6). Actually, to an extent it's okay to control what your kids do, but to try to control what they think with your parental authority (e.g. punishment if he says they want to date a hispanic girl, or guy for that matter) is just abominable.
L)There's nothing at all inherently wrong with race-mixing (#1, #3). It does not strip away personal identity - if you need cultural identity to cling to so that you can feel like a complete person, then you'd probably be screwed up even if you had it. This works lots of way - I can't comprehend why people of any race obsess over their roots, unless they've got something really neat like a famous inventor, or ingenious cat burglar or something in their family tree.
M)A lot of people (and I'm not saying this is part of WN ideology, it's just a trend I've seen), say they feel that white liberals, especially those who mix races, are traitors of a sort. Well, that's true... in the same sense that a Rayovac-buyer is a traitor to the Duracell paradigm (#1, #3).
N)Cultural genocide is a fuzzy term, and it's what WN people worry about most, and perhaps even with reason. I'm kind of harsh on this point - my belief is that if a culture cannot sustain itself then it is probably not worth sustaining beyond a museum context. The encroaching culture is, of course, morally wrong if it uses force or violence to destroy the victim culture, but other than that anything goes. Basically, #1, #2, and #3 all apply here. For instance, I feel sorry for both Tibetans and Native Americans, each of whom lost their legacy and culture in violence, destruction and tragedy, but I won't deny that both cultures are a lot less appealing in most ways than what supplanted them. If only they could have been left behind by choice rather than force. For the people who live on reservations and try to keep to traditional ways - I think they're nuts, but applaud them if they legitimately prefer it. Same goes with religions.